Now that I’ve actually read it

Status
Not open for further replies.

courtgreene

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
NC
If you want to read the text of the safe communities act (I think that’s what we call it) which was sent to potus desk today, here it is:
https://www.murphy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/bipartisan_safer_communities_act_text.pdf

After reading it, here’s my unpopular opinion.
  1. I’ve been saying for a long time that the instant check system needed to be fixed. Many of you have said the same. This takes steps to fix it. I’m glad.
  2. We say often on here that mental health and not the guns are the bigger problem. This at least throws money at that.
  3. The most aggressive thing I can see here is waving money in front of states to encourage red flag laws. That’s a state by state situation.
It almost seems to have been written by people monitoring this website. I know it wasn’t, but a lot of its content has been suggested here.

I’m sure others disagree. That is fine.
 
I don't have any problem believing that the people who craft such legislation have staffers monitoring website such as this one.

And honestly some of the users I've seen here (won't name names) give me off vibes as being either a reporter or possibly a staffer of some of those people. Asking us questions from what would seem to be a outsider point of view.

We say often on here that mental health and not the guns are the bigger problem. This at least throws money at that.

Completely agree and I was actually well pleased when I read it, they are at least finally addressing the mental health aspect of things. We have to be people of our word; This is a good thing and will hopefully steer us in the right direction to preventing theses massacres.


The most aggressive thing I can see here is waving money in front of states to encourage red flag laws. That’s a state by state situation.

And this is the problem. The idea of red flag laws I agree with, but it gives too much power to people who can barely know you and they punish you without due process. Depending on how they're implented, this is such a bad idea and a major blow to us.
 
Last edited:
I read through the highlights of the bill, and agree that it is not as hideous as many believed it would be.

I do have a major problem with punishing people for things that someone believes that they might do in the future. From experience with extended family, there are things already in place that let us deal with destructive people, so I'm not sold on the idea that the law is needed. That said, the bill is pretty much a nothingburger. The "red flag" section does not create any red flag laws. It does allow for grants to states who pass such laws, but in order to qualify, the state's law must provide due process, with the right to call witnesses and be represented by an attorney. Qualification also requires penalties for abuse of the system.

As noted, it expands background checks to include juvenile offenses, and it gives funding for mental health. It has one bad grammar portion that very slightly redefines who needs an FFL.

I'm very curious to see what will happen to existing "red flag" laws in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling. As I read it, the ruling stops legislatures and courts from weighing cost vs. benefit. Instead, it is presumed that RKBA is binding unless it can be shown that there is a substantial history of similar laws. I think a lot of laws have been upheld on grounds that are no longer permitted.
 
I agree with the OP. I was expecting magazine limits, bans on semi-automatic evil black rifles and some type of background check for ammo. So they did not go after the guns directly. I am still apposed to any attempt at red flag laws but the libs seem to think that they will help them achieve their end goals. This seems to be a do something bill to make a disastrous administration look good before mid terms. There will be more to follow and I expect they will try to up the game to banning certain firearms especially if they are still in control after the mid terms. I don't think this was a win. Just a reprieve.
 
The most crime plagued communities in the country are those in which the residents who KNOW the gang members and drug dealers refuse to assist the police in getting illegal guns off the street and the criminal element out of their neighborhoods. Yet politicians refuse to address this issue in all the feel-good gun legislation. These are the ones who red flag laws should also hold responsible for gun related crimes.
 
when I read it I thought similar things. could be much worse than it is. Red flag laws are worrysome, but its not cramming them down our throats.

The "red flag" section does not create any red flag laws. It does allow for grants to states who pass such laws, but in order to qualify, the state's law must provide

Well, it IS however dangling lotsa ca$h on a hook in front of states legislatures. Ca$h, taxes, the lifeblood of all things political. And that's a big hook also. If the state is smart, they simply refuse the 1st offering, hoping for a BIGGER gob of worms er, ca$h.

There will be more to follow and I expect they will try to up the game to banning certain firearms especially if they are still in control after the mid terms. I don't think this was a win. Just a reprieve.

It's a win in that, now hear me out, they'll say ''bipartisan'' in the beginning and end, and many many times in the middle of EVERY comment on the topik while campaigning. I would suspect the speech to go like this...

1000 words total
300-500 words are stumbles, fumbles, studders, mentioning the wrong day
200 about the bill and...
the other 600 about how wonderful Senator X, Y, & Z is
 
A lot of $ being handed out, but to who? And who determines the guide lines of mental health?

Why are you asking…are you sure your feeling OK? Do you feel like someone is out to get you? :)

I will give them one thing, they are like a scorpion with a stick in its back. They don’t give up trying to sting that stick and will hit every location on it trying to get somewhere.

The “who” and “how” is going to keep “red flag” cases in courts for years. Stripping lawful people of firearms. That’s the hard part of stopping crime before it occurs, they are not a law breaker, until they commit a crime.

Now you can be stripped of rights because someone thinks you should. The exact opposite of innocent until proven guilty. You are stripped of your rights until what, you can prove that you are not going to do what you have never done before?

At least they did something and did it for the children. Now that they are all safe and I am happy this gun violence stuff is done and behind us with so we can move on to real problems like global warming…
 
Last edited:
The most crime plagued communities in the country are those in which the residents who KNOW the gang members and drug dealers refuse to assist the police in getting illegal guns off the street and the criminal element out of their neighborhoods.
To this point I recently heard (on Dan Crenshaws podcast I think) the stat that in the average major city gangs made up around .5% of the population and were responsible for between 50 & 70% of “gun violence” I knew it was, but that’s an astonishing number.

To the point of the OP, I tried to read the bill, about 2-3 pages I. I noticed it was 40 pages long and thought about the fact that ever summary I’ve seen was between 4 sentences and 4 paragraphs. I don’t know what’s in the bill, I can’t even read it find out as I’m not a lawyer. I seriously doubt any of us do…..yet.
 
With regard to the Red Flag provisions, as I understand, the states can only get the money if their state's Red Flag law contains all of the many provisions in the new BPSCA. That includes giving the gun owner right to counsel, the right to know the accuser and adjudication via a judge (I believe) and not by a police official.

I also saw in a video an analysis that none of the current Red Flag protocols in any state meet these criteria. Thus, my conclusion, is that this will be an empty law that is unlikely to ever cause a single cent to be spent.
 
It almost seems to have been written by people monitoring this website. I know it wasn’t, but a lot of its content has been suggested here.

It's because maybe lawmakers are now actually monitoring their constituents. Many of the things suggested here are also the opinions of the general public and are not original nor exclusive of the website.

As much as so many here dis the suggestions of others pertaining to curbing gun violence, I see very little actual solutions offered by the same folks. Folks blame
Mental health, but don't have a clue what it will take to fix it. Folks claim it's the "crazies" that commit mass shootings, but yet want those same "crazies" to have easy access to firearms. Improving our mental health system to sift out those "crazies " will do no good without Red Flag laws to prevent them from obtaining firearms until they are better. There is no medication or therapy that will work instantly. People are only afraid of Red Flag laws because they think they will be used against them nefariously. We need to assure folks that cannot happen.

In truth there are no quick and easy solutions. Unfortunately, none are going to be completely painless to the gun community. What we need to do is make sure they are fair and equitable within the parameters of the 2A.
 
I have a few issues with "Red Flag Laws". Getting a warrant for "hearsay" seems problematic to me. Once the guns are removed, how are the stored? I had a friend who had his guns taken, and when he got them back a year later they were all dinged up and loaded with rust. One gun was a $12,000 Kriegoff shotgun that came back to him looking like some one used it as a baseball bat. Due process is also a concern to me. If someone makes a claim, and has the guns of a person taken away, and it turns out the claims were false; can the owner of the guns sue for restitution, and legal fees?
 
‘‘Bipartisan Safer Communities Act’’

Looking at all of this I simply do not see this as a path to safe communities anymore than the NY Safe Act has made NY any safer. I think that yes, it's nice that we are finally addressing mental health. Rough estimates place as many as 400 million guns in the US. If someone wants a gun for all the wrong reasons they will get a gun. Gun crime in the US is totally out of control, especially in major cities. Yet we continue to have a judicial system more enmeshed with the rights of criminals than victims of crime. Anyone who believes this legislation will reduce crime and make communities safer is seriously mistaken. What this amounts to is feel good do nothing legislation. They can't legislate morality. So while personally I don't have any issues with this legislation I really do not see it solving problems with a coarsening of the US culture.

Just My Take...
Ron
 
I’ve been saying for a long time that the instant check system needed to be fixed. Many of you have said the same. This takes steps to fix it. I’m glad.
This the are that concerns me the most.
For one, NICS was never designed to be audited (it's late 70s government contract database construction, barely more advanced than paper punchcards).
For two, seven entire States have never sent any mental health information to NICS, which dates back to the creation of NICS.
For three, 14 States are flagrantly delinquent in passing criminal records to NICS.

So, this novel notion, that temporary information can be added, like TRO, and that each one of those will simply "expire" when its time runs out, is hugely troubling.

MA has been through this. It's pistol permit process will open sealed Juvenile records and will ban permits based on trivial things, like being convicted of a "weapons violation" for having a slingshot in school.

But, your point about how this is largely a pork barrel bill tossing $750 million at the States as if the money means nothing, is still entirely valid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top